The Alliance received 49.27 percent of the votes (an increase by 1.03 pp from the previous election) and 173 seats in the parliament (a decrease by 5 seats and 2 short of an overall majority), while the Red-Greens received 43.60 percent of the vote (a decrease by 2.48 pp) and 156 seats (a decrease by 15 seats).[1] The election also saw the nationalist Sweden Democrats entering parliament for the first time, as the sixth largest and only non-aligned of the eight parties elected to the parliament, by receiving 5.70 percent of the votes (an increase by 2.77 pp) and 20 seats.[1]

After the election in September 2006, the Alliance slipped well behind the opposition in the polls. A Sifo poll conducted in February 2008 showed the opposition leading the Alliance by 19.4%. However, this lead steadily eroded during the second half of the Alliance's term, despite the opposition's uniting in the Red-Green co-operation in December 2008.

The Sweden Democrats were expected[by whom?] to enter the Parliament for the first time, as the party's polling results had exceeded the 4% entry threshold since June 2009. The Green Party had also made a significant transformation from the smallest elected party to the third largest party during the term, overtaking the Left Party, the Christian Democrats, the Liberals and even the Centre Party in most polls following the 2006 election.

The Sweden Democrats generated controversy before the election.[8] Both the Alliance and the Red-Greens pledged not to seek support from the SD,[6] with Reinfeldt ruling out forming a government in cooperation with the Sweden Democrats.[4]

A privately owned television network, TV4, refused to air a SD campaign video, which was then uploaded to YouTube and viewed more than 600,000 times. The SD video portrayed a track-meet, in which the race is for pension funds. In the video, a Swedish pensioner is outrun by burka-clad women with prams.[8]

On 13 September in Gothenburg, about 500 counter-demonstrators prevented the Sweden Democrats from making a planned election rally.[12] Police used pepper spray to disperse the counter-demonstration, which lacked a permit, and seven counter-demonstrators were detained.[12] On 14 September, the Sweden Democrats cancelled planned rallies in three cities, Eskilstuna, Karlstad, and Uddevalla, because of security concerns. Similarly, concerns about security led to an election tour being cancelled on 15 September in Norrköping.[13][14]

After these cancelled election rallies, the National Police Commissioner Bengt Svenson severely criticized the county police for failing to safeguard the Sweden Democrats: "If it is not possible to protect them [in those locales], the police have failed in its planning and execution of its mission. [ . . . ] It is a serious problem when such meetings cannot be held, because it is our absolute duty to ensure that the constitutionally guaranteed rights be maintained and that all meetings can be held".[15]

These attempts to limit the SD message were described by Al Jazeera as counterproductive, in that they enabled the SD to portray itself as a victim of censorship.[8]

Similarly, Hanne Kjöller of Dagens Nyheter hypothesised that the attacks strengthened the Sweden Democrats rather than hurting the party's support base. "Jimmie Åkesson becomes a poor underdog and the picture of a party that is holding some dangerous but important truth is enhanced. The Sweden Democrats should send flowers to the left-wing extremists, thanking them for the publicity."[16]

As exit polls conducted by the national broadcaster Swedish Television predicted, the Sweden Democrats reached the 4% threshold needed to enter parliament, making this election the first in which they were able to enter parliament.[6]

A preliminary count of 5,668 voting districts showed the Alliance with 172 seats, ahead of the Red-Greens.[18] However, this fell short of the 175 seats needed for an absolute majority, and it appeared the Sweden Democrats would hold the balance of power in the new parliament.[19][20] Reinfeldt declared that he had no intention to cooperate with the Sweden Democrats.[21]

On 23 September, the final results showed the Centre Party gaining an adjustment seat in Dalarna, giving the Alliance a total seat count of 173, still two seats short of an absolute majority.[1] The Alliance's Liberal People's Party were only 7 and 19 votes short from gaining additional seats in Gothenburg and Värmland respectively,[22] but according to Svante Linusson, a professor in mathematics, the actual margin was still over 800 votes.[23][24]

On the day after the election, rallies against the Sweden Democrats took place in a number of Swedish cities. Reports indicated that 10,000 people were estimated to have marched in Stockholm under banners reading "We are ashamed", "No racists in Parliament",[25] and "Refugees – welcome!". In Gothenburg, 5,000 people took part in a "sorrow march against racism", and 2,000 people marched in Malmö. Support for the Sweden Democrats was strongest in the southernmost province Scania, where the party received about 10% percent of the vote, and in the neighbouring province Blekinge, where they received 9.8 percent; the foreign media quoted "some people" from further north of the country as calling for Scania to be handed back to Denmark, where the Danish People's Party were seen as an inspiration for the SD.[citation needed]

Liberal evening tabloid Expressen wrote in an editorial "The banner of tolerance has been hauled down and the forces of darkness have finally also taken the Swedish democracy as hostage. It's a day of sorrow." Liberal conservative morning newspaper Svenska Dagbladet said "[It is] time for the Swedes to get themselves a new national self-image [as the election] created a new picture of Sweden".[26]

"While it’s hard to say that Sweden has woken up to a new self-image, one can say that this is more like a normal European situation and is similar to other western European countries with a proportional election system, where a populist right-wing party has seats in parliament. It’s the party that is the least liked among other voters, so it is not surprising that people have reacted with dismay". Carl Dahlstroem, professor of politics at Gothenburg University.[26]

The election was a landmark for its impact on the Social Democrats, which had been in government for 65 of the last 78 years and who had never lost two consecutive elections. This was their worst result since universal suffrage in 1921. Swedish political scientist Stig-Björn Ljunggren said "The Social Democrats no longer symbolise the Swedish model. They've lost their magic." The Dagens Nyheter postulated that electoral failure was based on internal factors, such that the Social Democrats failed to win over the middle class and had completely lost touch with their original vision, which had made them a dominant political party.[27] An attempt to blame external factors for their electoral failure was seen[by whom?] as part of an attempt by party leaders to avoid responsibility for electoral defeat. This is based on a general pattern of nationalist politics in which different political blocs have used foreign developments to influence domestic political outcomes in Sweden.[citation needed]

The Irish Times saw the rise of the SD as sending "ripples of shock not only through the country but through European politics," and asked "Is this finally it for the 'Swedish model'" that has been represented as a "meld of liberal values, high taxes, outstanding childcare and welfare that made the country the poster boy for European social democracy?" The Social Democrats' failure reflected the party's inability to adapt, an increasingly technocratic profile, a failure to address immigration concerns, as well as Reinfeldt's success in managing the economy. The results draws parallels with a larger decline of European left parties.[28] An article in Al Jazeera English asked if Western political dynamics were changing following the Swedish and United States elections. The article said that predictions after the election indicated "an entirely new political landscape" and "the beginning of an era of sharper political division in Sweden." It asked if the similar results "reflect rather an underlying continuity in the generation-long evolution of Euro-American politics towards a fully neoliberalised system" and that Sweden seemed to be "moving towards an outdated model." It also said that, while social policies were simarly moving to the right, economic policies were poles apart, with the emergence of far-right parties in Sweden and Denmark still supporting the welfare state and the American parties remaining on the economic right-wing.[29]

The case of Annika Holmqvist, a seriously ill 55-year-old woman who had her sickness benefits withdrawn and was requested to seek work, allegedly due to the Alliance's reforms of Sweden's social security system, gave the opposition a late boost in its campaign. The Local thinks it might have deprived the Alliance of an overall majority. Holmqvist's daughter wrote about her case in a web log post that gained publicity and became a hot topic in the debates. In spite of promises of a solution, after the election it was decided Holmqvist will lose her illness[citation needed] benefits.[30][31][32]

The Moderate Party was still seen as one of the big winners of the election because of its "well-executed campaign" that emphasised Sweden’s "remarkable political and economic stability in a turbulent world" after Sweden weathered the recession; despite mass unemployment, the economic growth in 2010 was the highest in Western Europe.[4]

Reinfeldt issued a 30-page statement of the new government's policies, saying it would "seek a broad-based and responsible solutions (sic)", and that it would "be natural...to hold regular discussions with the Green Party, in the first instance and also the Social Democratic Party where appropriate."[34]